Kate Steinle killer Zarate will be taken into custody by federal authorities on two new charges

Barnard: "Did you shoot Kate Steinle, the lady who was down at Pier 14."
Sanchez: "Yes."
Barnard: "You did shoot her?"
Sanchez: "Mm hm," he said with a nod.

Steinle was shot and killed near the Ferry Building on Wednesday. Sanchez tells ABC7 News that the shooting was an accident. He says he was wandering
on Pier 14 after taking sleeping pills he found in a dumpster.

Barnard: "Where did you get the gun?"
Sanchez: "In the ground. When the... when the... over there in the bench, um, um, I put my leg and I see the one T-shirt and then see over there
something like that."

He claims a gun was wrapped in that T-shirt and that it went off when he picked it up.

"Then suddenly I heard that boom boom, three times," Sanchez said.

He claims he kicked the gun into the San Francisco Bay, lit up a cigarette, and walked off, not knowing he shot someone until he was arrested by
police hours later. Sanchez reportedly first told police he was shooting at sea lions.

He appeared frail and nervous when he talked about returning to the U.S. after being deported back to his native Mexico five times.

Barnard: "Why did you keep coming back to the U.S., why did you come back to San Francisco?"
Sanchez: "Because I was looking for jobs in the restaurant or roofing, landscaping, or construction."

Sanchez said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials.

originally posted by: proteus33
sorry going to cuss WTF HE HAD GUN IN HIS DAMN HAND HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE EVIDENCE HE WAS BRANDISHING IT ? SMMFH.

Brnadishing is a legal term for openly displaying and/or waving the firearm about. There wasnt any video evidence he did this as per the juror that
was interviewed.

Goes to what I said in the other/original thread about the warrants: it boggles my mind that the prosecutor was able to convince that jury that Zarate
had the gun in his possession (as evidenced by the conviction for possession by a felon) yet somehow couldn't convince them that his handling of it
was negligent.

So...he handled the gun enough to be in possession of it...but his handling of it was not negligent/reckless, but it also was not intentional....

I agree. I stated earlier that this was prosecutorial incompetence, the juror even stated that if it would have been say felony possession of a
firearm he felt that the jury would have convicted on the manslaughter charge. People are railing about the judge but it really is the prosecutor who
should come under scrutiny.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Yep. Hell, even the lesser version of manslaughter would've been more palpable than a complete acquittal. Little solace to the family but at least it
would've been a damn conviction for the death.

I'm sure the family would have taken that over the prosecutorial blunder perpetrated by this nudnik.

Bah. I'm sure they'll take comfort in knowing the DA feels bad about not being able to get a conviction for anything substantial, and that he believes
his homicide team really, really tried their best.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.